Without comment, here is a video of the actual speech that Senator Obama recently caught to much criticism for. Critics - including this blogger - zeroed in on his use of the phrase "quiet riot." Listen for yourself. Let us know your opinion.
Here's a link to the news article with video. For whatever reason the video link is taking forever to load, whereas clicking on the video here brings it right up.
A rhetorically odd speech...would be interesting to evaluate a transcript, away from the gloss the senator's delivery gives it.
Especially the first mention of "quiet riot" after the baby story - a very odd transition. At first I thought they had made a jump cut and left a bit out...
Like you, Tom, I've lived in LA. I lived there for the first half of my life. In fact, I spent my early childhood in South-Central LA. The use of "riot" here, while obviously not meant as an incent to riot on the senator's part, was disturbingly opportunistic and divisive in my opinion.
So, following the rhetoric here are we to understand that the last LA riot was actually a quiet riot? Funny, it didn't look that way to me watching the market I used to grocery shop in go up in flames. And the LA riots = Katrina? Among many other differences, weren't the reports of rioting in New Orleans vastly, even hysterically, over-reported?
When the senator got to the obligatory [the LA riots were] "inexcusable and self-defeating" remark I was sort of wincing, waiting for the "but"...he didn't/did disapoint me. Oh dear. No senator, it was just inexcusable and self-defeating. No buts.
Like I said, I'm from LA. I get the foul backstory of Gates LAPD and the King trial. Many, many people of all ethnicities, including me and my entire family, were horrified by the way that case was handled and its outcome. But making the city go up in flames (and apparently shooting babies in utero, among other atrocities) wasn't an acceptable response.
The senator's frankly rather cynical appropriation of the word "riot" doesn't seem very acceptable either, except maybe as a campaign tactic. On that score, it seems to have worked rather well.
Here's a link to the news article with video. For whatever reason the video link is taking forever to load, whereas clicking on the video here brings it right up.
ReplyDeleteA rhetorically odd speech...would be interesting to evaluate a transcript, away from the gloss the senator's delivery gives it.
ReplyDeleteEspecially the first mention of "quiet riot" after the baby story - a very odd transition. At first I thought they had made a jump cut and left a bit out...
(Can't help but wonder if the baby is real...)
Like you, Tom, I've lived in LA. I lived there for the first half of my life. In fact, I spent my early childhood in South-Central LA. The use of "riot" here, while obviously not meant as an incent to riot on the senator's part, was disturbingly opportunistic and divisive in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo, following the rhetoric here are we to understand that the last LA riot was actually a quiet riot? Funny, it didn't look that way to me watching the market I used to grocery shop in go up in flames. And the LA riots = Katrina? Among many other differences, weren't the reports of rioting in New Orleans vastly, even hysterically, over-reported?
When the senator got to the obligatory [the LA riots were] "inexcusable and self-defeating" remark I was sort of wincing, waiting for the "but"...he didn't/did disapoint me. Oh dear. No senator, it was just inexcusable and self-defeating. No buts.
Like I said, I'm from LA. I get the foul backstory of Gates LAPD and the King trial. Many, many people of all ethnicities, including me and my entire family, were horrified by the way that case was handled and its outcome. But making the city go up in flames (and apparently shooting babies in utero, among other atrocities) wasn't an acceptable response.
The senator's frankly rather cynical appropriation of the word "riot" doesn't seem very acceptable either, except maybe as a campaign tactic. On that score, it seems to have worked rather well.